WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/816 
18 January 2008 
 (08-0261) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures 
  
 
 
  
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON GOOD PRACTICE IN SPS-RELATED  
TECHNICAL COOPERATION 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The WTO and OECD are collaborating closely in the monitoring of Aid for Trade.  The initial 
results of this collaboration were presented during the First Global Review of Aid for Trade on 20-21 
November 2007.  As part of this on-going monito ring function, specific thematic research is being 
undertaken on particular issues identified during th e 2007 review.  In particular, research is being 
commissioned in the area of food safety, animal and plant health measures, collectively known as 
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. 
2. The research on SPS measures is being conducted wi thin the framework of the Standards and 
Trade Development Facility (STDF). This work builds on initial surveys of SPS needs and the 
provision of assistance in three pilot regions: Central America, East Africa and the Greater Mekong 
Delta Sub-region. The initial findings were presen ted during the three regional reviews of Aid for 
Trade held in Africa, Asia and Latin America.  The pilot countries in each region are as follows: 
• Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama; 
 
• Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda; and 
 
• Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Vietnam. 
 3. This work has a twofold objective: 
• To strengthen the link between "supply" and "demand" of SPS-related assistance by 
identifying gaps in the provision of assist ance and catalyzing the further provision of 
assistance as necessary; and 
 
• To identify "good practice" in the delivery an d receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation 
which may be replicated in futu re assistance activities. It is being done in collaboration with 
the OECD. 
 4. The aim of this document is to seek the assi stance of WTO Members in the achievement of 
the second of these objectives: research on good practi ce.  Further details on the first of these 
objectives will follow in a separate communicati on to the SPS Committee from the Secretariat. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/816 
Page 2  
 
  5. More specifically, we request that Members identify one or more SPS-related technical 
assistance projects in each of the aforementioned re gions which could be considered to be "good 
practice".  The projects chosen may have had SPS-assistance as a secondary part of a larger 
programme of assistance (e.g. on agricultural de velopment, WTO accession, environmental protection 
or human health), or as its primary focus.   
6. For each project identified, Members are ki ndly requested to complete the attached 
questionnaire and provide copies of final project documents and evaluations.  On the basis of 
responses provided, field research will be conducted in each of the three regions to examine beneficiary analysis of the projects.  A separate que stionnaire will thus be circ ulated to beneficiaries 
in due course.  The responses of donors and benefici aries will then be compiled and general elements 
of good practice identified. 
7. Results of this research will be presented at  a joint STDF-OECD workshop on good practice 
in SPS-related technical cooperation.  This workshop is tentatively scheduled to be held back-to-back 
with the SPS Committee meeting in October 2008  
8. Members are requested to return the co mpleted project questionnaires and related 
documentation to Mr Michael Roberts at the WTO Secretariat (e-mail:  michael.roberts@wto.org;  
fax:  +41 22 739 5760) by Friday, 29 February 2008
. 
9. Please note that this same request is being ci rculated to OECD Development Assistance 
Committee contact points.  
  G/SPS/GEN/816 
 Page 3 
 
 
  QUESTIONNAIRE ON GOOD PRACTICE 
 
 A separate questionnaire should be completed for each  project identified as good practice.  The aim of 
the questionnaire is to examine elem ents of good practice at two levels: 
 
• Project cycle: From project design to ex-post evaluation;  and 
 
• Assessment of outcomes or impacts on beneficiary’s  objectives: i.e. impact on market access, 
impact on the domestic burden of food-borne illness, impact on the pest or disease prevalence, impact on institutional capabilities, im pact on beneficiary’s capacity to implement 
the SPS Agreement, etc. 
 
  
 
General Project Information: 
 
Please provide the following general information on the project. 
 
Title :  
 
Dates: beginning and end of the project  
 
Funding: US $ or other currency,  
(including information on ‘in kind’ services and/or equipment.) 
 
Beneficiary: Specify the primary and secondary beneficiaries 
 
Project type: Follow-up project  Pilot project   Stand alone new project   
 G/SPS/GEN/816 
Page 4  
 
  Project Cycle - Questions 
 
Design 
 
(1)  What issue(s) did the project seek to address? 
 
Please check all relevant boxes.  
 
Animal health?  Food 
safety ?   Plant health?  General SPS 
capacity ?  
 
If others, please specify: 
 
    
 
(2)  Who initiated the project request? 
 
Donor identified need? 
  Request from beneficiary?  
 
 
 
(3)  Who designed the project? 
 
Donor?    Donor and 
beneficiary in 
collaboration?     Beneficiary ? 
  
 
If other, please specify : 
   
 
 
(4)  Was the project based on a needs assessment? 
 
Yes 
 No  
 
(5)  Was the needs assessment specific to the problem being addressed (e.g. a specific capacity 
evaluation of animal health capabilities?) 
 
Yes    No  
 
or was it part a broader assessment of needs? 
 
Yes  No  
  G/SPS/GEN/816 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (6)  In the design of the project, was account taken of other relevant on-going or completed 
projects?   
No 
information 
available    No 
relevant 
projects  Project 
designed as 
a follow-on 
activity to previous assistance by donor  Project 
designed as a 
follow-on 
activity to previous assistance by other donors  Pilot 
project    
Please specify: 
 
 
 
   
(7)  Please indicate to what extent you felt  the preparation time and information gathering 
phase for the project was sufficient? 
 
  
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%  
 
(8)  Please specify which beneficiaries or stakeholders, if any. were consulted during the project 
design phase . 
    
Implementation  
 
(9)  Who implemented the project? 
 
Donor   Independent 
contractor  Beneficiary  International 
organization  
 
If other, please specify  
 
 
    G/SPS/GEN/816 
Page 6  
 
  (10)  To what extent did the beneficiary participate in implementation of the  
project?  
  
             
0-20%   20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 
 (11) In what way did the beneficiary contribut e to the project implementation  (for example 
through an in-kind contribution, joint implementation of activities etc.)? 
 
Please specify  
    
 
   
(12)  Did difficulties arise with the benefi ciary during implementation of the project? 
 
Yes 
 No  
 If so, please specify the nature of  the problem and how it was resolved . 
  
 
    
 
(13)  Who was responsible for monitoring the project? 
 
Donor  
  Independent 
contractor  Beneficiary  International 
organization  
 
 
(14)  To what extent were the activities and out puts delivered according to the project cycle plan 
(e.g. on time and within the budget)?  
  
  
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
  G/SPS/GEN/816 
 Page 7 
 
 
   
(15)  What changes, if any, changes made during project implementation?   
Reallocation of 
budget items   Time extension to allow 
completion of activities   Supplement to original 
project budget  
 
If others, please specify: 
   
 
    
(16)  If changes were made, at whose request were the changes made?  
 
Donor  
 Contractor  Beneficiary  
 
 
 
Evaluation 
 
(17)  Was an evaluation of the project undertaken? 
 
Yes  No  
 If so, please attach a copy of the evaluation to this questionnaire  
 
(18)  To what extent have the benefits of  the project continued after funding has ceased? 
   
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 
(19)  To what extent did the beneficiaries have the necessary capacity to sustain benefits of the 
project? 
 
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 
 
(20)  Was the capacity to sustain outcom es assessed during the project design phase? 
 
 Yes    No   G/SPS/GEN/816 
Page 8  
 
   
Outputs 
 
(21)  To what extent were the project objectives/outputs achieved?  
 
  
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 
 
(22)  What  were the main factors determining the achievement of the objectives?  
 
Please list :  
 
    
 
 
 
Achievement of higher order objectives 
 
(23)  Has any evaluation been made of the project’s impacts on higher order objectives, such as 
institutional capacity, poverty alleviation, mark et access, burden of pest or disease, burden of 
food borne illness, etc…?  
 
Yes  No   Don’t Know  
  If not submitted under question (8), please attach a copy of the evaluation.  
Please specify the projects alignment with the na tional social or economic development objectives. 
    G/SPS/GEN/816 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Good practice 
 
(24)  In what respect(s), can the project be  described as an example of good practice? 
 
Project  cycle   Achievement of higher order 
objectives  
 
Please explain : 
    
 
   
(25)  What aspect(s) of good practice from this project could be repeated  e.g. in future projects 
in this issue, in future projects for this beneficiary and by the broader donor community? 
  
Please explain : 
  
 
    
 
  
(26)  Please indicate to what extent was the project a cost-effective contribution to addressing 
the designated objectives?  
 
  
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%  
 
 
__________